The Phantom Of The Opera (1989)

     I was very pleased to find a used copy of this.  It was Halloween afternoon and I was browsing a couple stores since I had some time to myself that day.  The DVD case was beat all to hell, but I took my chances and I rushed home, made some lunch and started the movie.  Thankfully, the disc played just fine.

     I saw this movie once around 1990.  I thought it was a bit slow but ok overall.  That was when I was twelve years old though.  This was the height of the Freddy Kruger craze, so it didn't matter to me if the movie was good or not at the time.  There was nothing in this movie that was going to make the twelve year old me not wish that I was watching a Nightmare On Elm Street movie.  I just wasn't going to be satisfied seeing Robert Englund in anything else.  Still, I plodded through the movie and almost immediately erased it from memory.

     So here I am, twenty five years later and I can't wait to give this movie another chance.  A proper chance.   I can't count how many movies I didn't care for as a kid that I absolutely love now.  I suspect that Englund's Phantom will hold up better this time around.  It does, and then some.

     I knew that casting Robert Englund in this movie was an attempt to cash in on the Freddy Kruger following at the time.  I felt that way then, and I still feel that way.  Hey, at the very least, it worked on me back in the day.  Englund's Phantom is nothing to scoff at either.  He gives oa great performance here.  You don't sympathize with this Phantom.  He's a selfish killer that sold his soul to the devil long ago.  He's been given unnatural strength and a quickness that isn't quite explained.  Remember in old Friday the 13th movies, where no matter how fast those teenagers run, Jason could walk and still catch them?  Yeah, it's more impressive than that even.  I think giving this movie more of a supernatural feel than any of the other existing Phantom movies helps set it apart from the others.  I'm sure the decision to go that route was based solely on the time this picture was made though.  The mid-80's to early 90's were all about the supernatural slasher flicks, and this Phantom movie blends right in.  Bill Nighy of Underworld fame also makes an appearance in this.  Not necessarily a memorable role for Nighy but he does an adequate job.  The female lead, played by Jill Schoelen, came across a bit hollow to me.  I suspect that she was chosen more for her singing talent than her acting.  If I'm wrong and her opera singing was dubbed, then they clearly should have chosen a different actress in my opinion.  Maybe the budget wouldn't allow for a bigger name actress?  I suppose I should find a copy of the Blu-Ray and see if that sheds any light on the casting of this movie.   And so there's not any confusion, understand that this movie is not a musical.  It's a horror movie first and foremost and stays that way.  You get what you'd expect from a Phantom of the Opera movie:  Gothic atmosphere, great costumes and set design, a bit of a love story.  But you also get some things that you don't see coming like people skinned alive, supernatural dealings with the devil and time travel.  Yes, I said time travel.  I don't know how else to explain some of what happens in this.  Also, unlike previous Phantom movies, there is not mask for the Phantom to hide behind.  Instead, he just keeps sewing on fresh pieces of human flesh.  Almost makes you want to see Englund's Phantom and Neeson's Darkman go at it for a few rounds.

     I liked this movie more than I thought I would.  It was good Halloween afternoon flick that really helped my day along.  It was a good day.

                                                   GRADE: B-

Man-Thing (2005)

     Yes, it was just 10+ years ago that Marvel was licensing out their comic book properties rather than making the movies themselves.  Sony was making some very successful Spider-Man films.  Fox got the rights to make X-Men and Fantastic Four movies.  New Line Cinema really were the ones to get the ball rolling with Blade.   And Lions Gate Films were able to nab a couple Marvel characters in The Punisher and Man-Thing.  Now while Punisher is a pretty big deal for LGF,  one has to wonder how or why they went after Man-Thing.   It's almost as if Marvel threw in the rights to Man-Thing to sweeten the deal a bit.   Was there anyone really excited to see a Man-Thing movie?   I'd wager that most people have never even heard of Man-Thing.   You mean Swamp Thing don't you?  No, apparently Marvel unveiled Man-Thing in May of 1971.  Two months before Swamp Thing.   And if you do a little more research on these two strangely similar comic book characters, you'll find that their humble origins have a lot in common, in and out of the comic books.   Seems that there may or may not have been some DC writers rooming with some Marvel writers at the time and with everyone running in the same social circles and what not, comic book fans sort of ended up with the same character in both Marvel and DC.   As the years went by, the characters would do more to separate themselves from their rival comic counterpart and Swamp Thing would become the more popularized of the two.   Though, that may have a lot to do with the fact that the Swamp Thing movie directed by Wes Craven came out in 1982, while we waited another 23 years for Man-Thing to get a movie.   I confess that as a kid, I knew who Swamp Thing was while not learning about Man-Thing for another 12 years or so.  And even thing, thinking that Man-Thing must have been the clone and not the other way around.

     Ok, so what about the movie????   Man-Thing is one of those high end, low budget films.   It's not a major production, but it's not so small a production either.   Filmed mainly in Australia with Australian actors/actresses,  Man-Thing actually does a pretty good job of keeping you interested.   And it's pretty atmospheric too.   One of the main things that I look for in a movie is the atmosphere or mood of the film.   Man-Thing really does a great job of putting you in the swamp and leaving you there at times.   Just a sound stage you say?   That may be the case for a good part of the film, but it works.   The lighting of the swamp is eerie and a bit unsettling.   I loved the mixture of greens, browns and yellows that we get.   How someone didn't even encounter a gator, much less get eaten by one remains a mystery though.

     I'm sure that a lot of people disagree with me.  I've seen the low ratings and bad reviews this movie got.   I don't care.  I like this film.  Yes, it got its debut on the Syfy Channel and not in theaters.  Yes, there is some bad acting.   No, it's not one of the greatest movies that I've ever seen.  Plot you ask?  Newly appointed Sherriff of Bywater, Mississippi encounters missing people, oil tycoons, native American terrorists, hot blonde school teachers, redneck locals and one massive man like thing.  
                                                                        GRADE: B

They Live (1988)

     Two things that I really enjoyed growing up:  1. John Carpenter movies & 2. Pro Wrestling.   The 80's were a great time for both.  So when you put one of the best directors of the decade with one of the best known wrestlers of the decade, good things are bound to happen right?

     First, a little about my love of pro wrestling.   My dad encouraged watching pro wrestling in a way.  He was always turning the channel to wrestling on a boring Saturday evening, and Ric Flair and the Four Horsemen were always lurking about.  Dad was only a mild fan though.  He mainly only wanted to hear the outrageous trash talk that always went on.  He would often mimic Ric Flair just to have a little fun with me.  So we'd watch wrestling together from time to time.  I'd root for the good guys, dad would root for the bad guys and fun was had by all.   It also didn't hurt that the WWF had a Saturday morning cartoon either.   This exposed me to guys like Hulk Hogan, Junkyard Dog, The Iron Sheik, and of course, Rowdy Roddy Piper.   Needless to say, I got bit by the wrestling bug and remain a fan even to this day.  Though pro wrestling isn't what it used to be.

     My love of John Carpenter movies developed mainly through his work with Kurt Russell but that's a discussion for another time.

     Roddy Piper is a lot of fun to watch in this one.   And Keith David is a great companion for him.  I wish this formidable pair would have gotten on the same page sooner though.  Imagine how much more bad ass this movie could have been with Piper and David wreaking havoc from the start.   Instead they wasted a lot of their energy kicking each other's ass, when they should have been hunting down some illegal aliens.   And I don't mean Mexicans or Columbians either.  I'm talking extra terrestrial, from another planet aliens that are up to illegal doings.   Or are they?   Piper learns later in the movie how bad these aliens are but he really doesn't know at first.  Instead, he finds out about them and starts opening fire.  No hesitation here.  If you're not human, you're dead.   Doesn't sound very tolerant of the Rowdy one does it?   Later in the movie, it's mentioned that humans are like livestock.  To me, that implies that they're food at least in some small capacity.   They also get blamed for societies woes, so I guess Piper did have some right to fire at will.  I mean, it wasn't like President Obama was around at the time to blame for all the shut down factories and police brutality.   No, these aliens are clearly out to corrupt mankind, steal our natural resources and possibly eat a few of us.   As a fan of the television show V,  I can't help but notice some of the similarities here either.   Alien invaders sucking our planet dry, dining on humans, lying to our faces.  With the main difference being that in V, the visitor's were out in the open while in They Live, the aliens are hiding through some form of hypnotic means.   And they've been here pretty much since the 50's.

     Piper's character exposes them at the end of the film.  At least in the Los Angeles area.  And it sort of just ends there.   Someone tell Mr. Carpenter to pick out another wrestler and write up a sequel.   I can't be the only one that's wondering if the resistance grew from there can I?   We can't erase some 30 plus years of alien occupation just by cutting a local L.A. television signal can we?   I mean, this movie was left more open than Independence Day was.

                                                                   GRADE: B

Psycho (1960)

     Admittedly,  I'm not very fluent when it comes to Alfred Hitchcock films.  Sure, I've seen Psycho plenty of times before, but who hasn't?  My only other exposure to Hitchcock was watching some of the television series and one viewing of The Birds when I was younger.  So yes, I have some catching up to do.

     SPOILER WARNING:  When I started this blog,  it was my intention to have a way to gather my thoughts about these classic movies that I love.  A way to delve into them more deeply.   And if some passerby happens upon these writings,  know that any discussion on these films is very welcome.  However,  because this was conceived mainly as a way to express my opinions of them and because most of these films are decades old,  I'm not looking to avoid any spoilers.  If you haven't seen Psycho,  I'd turn back now.

     Even now, when I watch this film, I can't help but compare it to how I felt the first time I saw it.   You never get over the first time you see some films.  I imagine that a lot of people, whether they have seen Psycho or not are aware that it was Norman doing the killing the whole time, right?  Well, I wasn't aware the first time I saw Psycho some 20 years ago and I appreciated the suspense and plot twist very much.   Of course, now that I watch it, knowing what I know, it's obvious that it was Norman the whole time, isn't it?  Well, yes and no.  There are certainly clues in the film.  Hints in Norman's dialogue.  But even if you catch on early to what is really transpiring at the Bates Motel,  Hitchcock does a great job of creating doubts.  It's never clear.  And that's part of what makes this movie so good.

     When you start watching Psycho, it's a different film.  By the end, you feel almost like you've sat through two different productions.  Janet Leigh's character, Marion is front and center for the first half of it.  You've went on this little journey with her that explores her moral dilemma.  Hitchcock has made it suspenseful with the use of the traffic cop, a curious car salesman and a nice touch of rain..  And in the end Marion comes to her senses and decides to turn around and attempt to fix her mistake.  The talk she has with the nice man that owns the local motel has done her some good, it seems.  It's all good from here right?

     No.  In fact, this is where the movie gets really interesting.  We've been on this journey with Marion, but this Norman Bates guy is what really grabs you.  Norman is nice, well mannered, and very orderly.  Nothing out of the ordinary at first.  But spend some time with him and you'll see.  Anthony Perkins grabs the audience with his eccentric performance and doesn't let go.  And you know who's even creepier than Norman?  His mother.  A boys best friend is his mother after all.

     If you're reading this, then you've probably already seen the film and I haven't said anything that you weren't already aware of.  If you haven't seen Psycho, then I've most likely just ruined the end for you.  Hey, you were warned.   We all go a little mad sometimes.

                                                            GRADE: A

Horror Express (1972)

     Sir Christopher Lee has passed at the age of 93.  Less than a week later, the world is still learning so much about the incredible life this man led.  Every day this week I've learned something else about Christopher Lee than I wasn't aware of.   Did you know he was once an aspiring opera singer?  To those of us have a deep love of classic horror movies, Mr. Lee will always be known as a Horror Icon.  But let's not forgot this man was a War Hero first, with a pretty remarkable service record.  Christopher Lee put in time as a spy and Nazi hunter long before he donned the crest of Dracula.  He was also known to be a great example of an English Gentleman, and I have no doubt that reputation was well deserved.  I don't have a bucket list, but if I did, meeting Christopher Lee, perhaps over a cup of tea would have most likely been on it.

     Now, in honor of Mr. Lee, I chose to watch Horror Express tonight.  It's an obscure movie that is said to be influenced by the short story "Who Goes There?".  That story also inspired The Thing From Another World, which of course led us to John Carpenter's The Thing and so forth.  At a glance, Horror Express has nothing to do with those other movies.  The bulk of those movies take place in Antarctica, involve American and Norwegian base camps that deal with a lot of bad weather and alien life forms.  Horror Express takes place on a train, involves a lot of English and Russian characters that deal with people with scary eyes and smooth brains that may or may not be alien life forms.  Still with me?  But, when you watch Horror Express, I promise you that you'll draw those comparisons to The Thing on your own without even knowing that they were both influenced by the same novella.  I know I did.  Horror Express tends to delve into the subject of religion versus evolution as well in an attempt to give the movie more substance and for the most part, it works.

     It's a bit of a treat here to enjoy Christopher Lee in a lead role that isn't villainous.  He plays an archeological professor of sorts.  He's no Indiana Jones, but he does have his heroic moments towards the end of this movie.  We're also treated to Peter Cushing, who plays a doctor on board the same train.  And then, as if the movie was lacking in crazy, Telly Savalas shows up to shake things up.  That's right, two Bond Villains and Grand Moff Tarkin are all here to save the day.  Or is that Dracula, Kojak and Dr. Frankenstein?  I better move on before I start some sort of ultimate movie character time paradox here.

     I like this movie.  It's obscure, it's underrated, and it almost feels like another great Hammer Films movie, though it isn't.  The musical score is said to have been by John Cacavas.  This appears to be his first movie score credit and when hearing pieces of it, I thought it sounded a lot like something that would be composed by John Paul Jones of Led Zeppelin fame.  That's not necessarily a bad thing here.

     If you have a chance, give this movie a go some time.  The picture quality of the various DVD copies are not exactly top notch but they aren't so bad that you can't enjoy the movie.  You may have a copy that skips a little bit the first 15 mins or so, or messed up for a few seconds towards the last third of the movie.  It's ok.  Just push on through.  When I found a copy of Horror Express at the local Goodwill store for 2 bucks I wasn't expecting much in terms of production, but after watching it, this cheap DVD copy faired much better than when I watched Horror Express on Turner Classic Movies a couple years ago on Halloween.  There is also a 2011 Blu Ray release of Horror Express but I haven't had a chance to view that one as of yet.

                                                                 GRADE: B

Dracula (1992)

     "Love Never Dies"  --  That was the tagline for this movie when it came out in 1992.  This movie is as much a love story as it is a horror flick, and it works.  Some of Francis Ford Coppola's best work in my opinion.  Everything from the set design to the costumes are top notch.  The musical score by Wojciech Kilar is amazing.  The film is near perfect.  Yet it's so different from any of the previous film incarnations that we've seen.  That's probably due to the fact that this movie takes after the actual book by Bram Stoker and not after the image of Hollywood's Dracula, though I'm pretty sure there were a few nods to Bela Lugosi in there.

     The success of this film starts and ends with the right actor to play Dracula.  Gary Oldman was absolute perfection in his portrayal Vlad the Impaler.   To portray the many sides of Vlad as well as endure the many hours of make up that I'm sure was required for this role speaks volumes of Oldman.  I believe it would have taken a special actor indeed to get through this movie whilst delivering a top notch performance of this iconic character.  Luckily, Oldman was available.

     So what doesn't work here?  Two things I wish I could change about this movie:  1. Keanu Reeves and 2. Hopkins performance.  I'll start with Hopkins.  I generally enjoy Anthony Hopkins in anything he does and on the surface, he seems like a great fit for the Van Helsing character.  But he comes off a bit too eccentric and goofy for me in this movie.  Is this perhaps how the Van Helsing character was written in the original novel?  Could be.  I've tried to read the novel twice and both times bowed out before even getting to Van Helsing.  So as someone who isn't completely familiar with the book and is accustomed to a Van Helsing played by Edward Van Sloan or Peter Cushing, Hopkins portrayal of Van Helsing just comes off as some form of cheap comic relief that just doesn't seem necessary.  Then again, had Hopkins played the character straight, I'm not sure there would be enough there to make the role memorable, so maybe Hopkins version of Van Helsing is justified here in order to make the character interesting.

     My other complaint is the casting of Keanu Reeves.  I have trouble seeing him in this movie without thinking of Bill & Ted.  Even though the Wyld Stallyns had a time traveling pay phone, they would seem deeply out of place in this film and guess what, Reeves is out of place.  Of coarse, I could nitpick even more about the casting.  Cary Elwes?  Wynona Ryder?  Sadie Frost? Tom Waits?  All these people do an adequate job and the film doesn't suffer but I can't help but think this movie could have been even better than it was.  From what I've read about this film though, it really doesn't get made without Ryder.  Word is that Wynona Ryder is the one that brought this project to the attention of Coppola.

     Ok, I've nitpicked enough.  This really is an excellent movie.  Above all, a great Dracula movie should be heavy on creepy gothic atmosphere and have a great actor in the lead role and this does that to perfection.
                                                            GRADE: A

    

Dracula's Daughter (1936)

     Turns out that Dracula had a daughter.  Who knew, right?  I consider this movie to be underrated by most.  It just seems to me that Dracula's Daughter never quite gets the credit it deserves.  Maybe it's because it's without the great Bela Lugosi.  People often speak of how Universal Studios should have done more Dracula movies with Lugosi and the fact that they didn't is just a lost opportunity, and that may be so.  BUT..... Dracula's Daughter can hold it's own against any of the other Universal Monster sequels.  In fact, Son Of Frankenstein is the only sequel I can think of that I like more than this movie.

     Gloria Holden plays Countess Marya Zaleska.  Like her father, she too is a vampire stalking the streets of London.  Apparently she followed Dracula there,  hoping to burn his body while performing a sacred rite that would lift the curse of vampirism from her and allow her to lead a normal life.  She has her familiar, Sandor, in tow as well.  Sandor doesn't seem too sure that Zaleska will be able to reverse her condition.  If he truly felt that she could give up her undead night life, I'm sure he'd do what he could to put an end to it.  At some point, the Countess promised to turn Sandor into a vampire as well and he's starting to get a bit impatient, though it doesn't show early on.  The two of them make a formidable pair.

     Now, the continuity does seem to break a bit at the beginning of this movie.  We supposedly pick up right where Dracula (1931) ended, but there is no Johnathan Harker or Mina in sight.  Renfield's body is in a different place than we remember and Professor Van Helsing seems to have found a nice hat he likes.  It might sound like I'm just nit-picking but seriously, this doesn't even remotely look like the same castle ruins that we left off with in the first movie.  Oh and the police, who couldn't be bothered to help previously, have shown up just in time to question Van Helsing as to why there is a corpse with a stake driven though it.  Van Helsing is arrested and spends most of the movie in police custody.

     From here the movie pretty much follows the first in that our heroes (Who in this case are therapist and his secretary aided some by the police chief and Van Helsing), attempt to discover the identity of this vampire that is loose in London at night, and put an end to it.  All while the Countess is hiding in plain sight, much like Dracula did in the first movie.  Zaleska does manage to escape back to Transylvania though and it's a delight that she did because it gives the viewer an excuse to gaze upon that great castle set from the first movie and even explore part of the caste that we didn't see the first time around.

     Don't let the fact that Countess Zaleska wants cured fool you.  She has her cold hearted, blood thirsty moments.   As far as I'm concerned, Zaleska is a vampire worthy of being mentioned along side all the greats.  She might not have seen eye to eye with her father but they both knew how to terrorize a city.  I highly recommend this movie.
                                                       GRADE: A

Dracula (1931)

     I feel like anything that I can say about this movie has already been said.  Most anyone that loves these classic movies, loves Lugosi's Dracula.  And they should because I'm not sure that any actor has ever owned a role like Lugosi did in this movie.  That commanding presence, that thick accent, those hand gestures.........all iconic.  A role that ended up being both a gift and curse to the man.  But I'm not covering any new ground by pointing those things out.  We're all aware of it.  We're also well aware of how good Dwight Frye and Edward Van Sloan are in this and how atmospheric this movie is, so I don't feel the need to go into any of that in great detail.

     There is no question that this movie is great.  The only real questions surrounding this movie generally are "Do you enjoy watching this with the updated Philip Glass score?" or "What color was the inner lining of Lugosi's cape?".   I've tried to watch Dracula with the Philip Glass score and I didn't care for it.  After about 20 minutes, I stopped.  The fact that there is no music in this movie, save for the Swan Lake piece, adds an eerie quality to it.  And what about that snippet of Swan Lake that we hear at the beginning credits?  We hear it again at the beginning of The Mummy but I have to be honest; every time I hear that music, I think of Lugosi's Dracula.  And for the record, the inside of Lugosi's cape in the movie is gray.  At least that's my understanding.  We envision it as red, but if the cape were red, it would have been much darker on film.  I believe Lugosi went through many colored capes in his career.  Before filming Dracula, Lugosi of course played him on stage.  Some early reviews pointed out that the inside of the cape was purple, others say orange.  I think I read that his Dracula cape from A&C Meet Frankenstein was of a pink/salmon color.  But in Dracula (1931) it was said to be a grey/silver.

     It is often pointed out that we never get around to staking poor Lucy in the heart.  It was scripted but never shot due to budget/time restraints.  So Lucy must still be wondering about London, preying on children right?  I think for the benefit of this movie and the sequel (Dracula's Daughter),  I'm going to assume that Dracula took care of Lucy himself, deciding that she was drawing too much attention.  This is London after all, not Transylvania.  The vampires ability to survive depends on laying low and in secrecy.  That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

     One last thing.  I can't recommend the Blu-Ray enough.  If not for the picture, then definitely for the sound quality, which is amazing.  Lugosi never sounded clearer or better.
                                                             GRADE: A+

    

Abbott & Costello Meet The Invisible Man (1951)

     It seems that I've made it to my last "Invisible" film for a while.  And it's one that I was looking forward to because Bud & Lou have never failed to entertain me.  Abbott & Costello movies used to come on weekly when I was a kid, so seeing them again is like revisiting people that I haven't seen in a long time.

     The standard Abbott & Costello gags are here as well as some new ones and they work as usual.  I don't know why they felt the need to change the names of Bud & Lou in these movies, because I'd rather just believe that the same duo are getting into a new set of hijinks movie after movie after movie.  Worked for The Three Stooges, right?

     The Invisible Man in this one is a boxer who's been framed.  Despite his rough and tough attitude (you know, because he's a boxer), he's very patient with the bumbling private detectives that are helping him.  (When they aren't trying to turn him in to the police.)  We also get a Claude Rains reference here that connects this movie to the original Invisible Man.   Thankfully, unlike Dr. Griffin from the first movie, Dr. Gray does manage to find a cure for the invisibility.  And what timing too since boxer, Tommy Nelson had just managed to clear his name.

     This has long been my second favorite Abbott & Costello movie.  And if ever there was an Abbott & Costello movie that I feel could be reworked and remade, it's this one. 
                                                               GRADE: B

The Invisible Man's Revenge (1944)

     I was pleased to know that Jon Hall made a return as the Invisible Man here.  Maybe we can finally get some good continuity out of these films, right?  Nope!  Jon Hall plays Robert Griffin, who has absolutely no relation to all those past Griffins that keep turning invisible.  He also isn't playing QB for the Washington Redskins, in case anyone was wondering about that.  No, Jon Hall is just a random guy named Griffin who to be honest, is a bit crazy, even before he's invisible.  I can't help but feel that maybe there was an early attempt to keep some sort of continuity, but script re-writes wouldn't have it and the name Griffin just stuck around this time.

     Hall's character this time does have a very different feel to him.  He plays the part well and I actually enjoy him in this movie more so than Invisible Agent.  John Carradine plays the doctor with the invisibility serum this time, and give him credit where credit is due, he's smart enough NOT to experiment on himself.  Instead he waits for some random stranger to come upon his house in the middle of the night.  Oh look, it's some guy named Griffin and as we all know the name Griffin and turning Invisible go together so well.

     There is also a nice scene involving a game of darts, even if it is quite a bit unrealistic even for someone who can't be seen.  It still amused me and was one of the better parts of the film.  The ending as well wasn't bad and overall this movie is worth a quick watch.  Even though Hall's character impressed me more in this one, I still believe I enjoyed Invisible Agent more overall, but maybe that's because I've always been a sucker for some spy stuff.
                                                                  GRADE: C-

Invisible Agent (1942)

     World War II is in full swing and the Nazi's want Dr. Griffin's invisibility formula.  The last surviving Griffin family member is Frank Griffin.  No, not Frank the brother of the original Invisible Man, but his grandson.  Named after the original Invisible Man that was gunned down by the cops.  No, wait, his name was Jack wasn't it?  Or John? Or...........ok, the writers are little all over the place with this.  Or let's just say that the Nazi's don't know what they are talking about.

     This Frank Griffin, played by Jon Hall,  has changed his name to Frank Raymond in order to hide himself and his inherited invisibility potion.  The Nazi's find him anyway and make their demands.  Peter Lorre plays one of the villains in this and I have to say, it's my favorite performance of his.  The only real downside was that about half way through this flick, we learn that Peter Lorre's character is supposed to be Japanese?  Huh?  <SIGH>  Ok, I'll just roll with it.  Lorre is very menacing.  Almost as if he leaped out of an Indiana Jones film.  (Yes, I know this was 40 years before Indy).  Anyway, Frank Raymond flees the Nazi's and joins the cause against the Germans by allowing himself to go invisible so that he may infiltrate the enemy ranks as a spy for the good guys.  Good thing too because Germany was just about to bomb the United States with their super secret operatives like the next day.

     And who's the surprise cameo in this one?  Matt Willis.  Who's that you ask?  Well, he played Andreas the werewolf bodyguard in Return Of The Vampire.  He plays one of the Nazi secret police here but don't blink because you may miss him.

     Overall, it's a decent watch.  I have to admit though, if not for Peter Lorre, I wouldn't be rating this movie nearly as high I don't think.  He steals every scene he's in.
                                                            GRADE:  C

The Invisible Woman (1940)

     I'm wondering why or how this movie got made?   It has no connections to the other films, other than it was produced under the mighty Universal Studios banner.  What makes the release of this movie even stranger, is that it was released the same year as the first sequel, The Invisible Man Returns.   So why two "invisible" films in one year by the same studio?   It's clear to anyone that's seen these movies, that the Vincent Price starring Invisible Man Returns is the official sequel.  What isn't clear is how The Invisible Woman got thrown into the mix.  The Invisible Woman doesn't even credit author H.G. Wells like the rest of these movies do, which leads me to believe that this movie was always seen as a stand alone film, separate from any of the others.  Maybe Universal were attempting to get a series of invisible female movies into motion, along side their current invisible male counterparts?  Seems possible.  Thankfully it didn't work out that way, so we never had to suffer through any cross over movie like The Invisible Couple or The Invisible Family that might have resulted when/if the two movie series merged.
  
    But how is the movie though?   Is it really that bad?  Well..... no, not really.  But I think I'm pretty glad that it stopped at one.  The Invisible Woman seems to try and play more to comedy than terror, and in some instances it works.  You're even going to be treated to a Stooge sighting in the form of Shemp Howard.   Though he really doesn't shine in this, he is present.  I wouldn't recommend watching The Invisible Woman purely to see Shemp.  You'll be disappointed.  To the best of my knowledge, this is also the only movie other than The Wizard Of Oz that I've seen Margaret Hamilton.  She played the Wicked Witch of the West.  Here, she plays a housekeeper of sorts.  It's not a big role, but it was a nice little surprise.  Other than the supporting cast, and a couple laughs, there isn't a lot to get excited about.  I would have been ok never seeing this.  Again, it's not a terrible movie either.  It just wasn't the movie I was wanting.  Expectations were fairly low and they were met.  The Invisible Woman is basically the chick flick version of The Invisible Man.
                                                       GRADE: D+

The Invisible Man Returns (1940)

     Ok, so the Invisible Man doesn't exactly return here.   Instead of Claude Rains, we get a 29 year old Vincent Price in the sequel, playing an invisible man that's a bit more gentle and heroic, and a little less chaotic and murdersome.   Don't get me wrong, Price's character of Geoffrey Radcliffe does encounter some of the same egocentric and power mad delusions that would plague Rains' Dr. Griffin in the first installment, but never at such a high level of madness.  This time, instead of an invisible man that we fear, we end up with a noble one that is in need of help if he is to get his name cleared in the killing of his own brother.   A crime that Geoffrey Radcliffe is set to hang for.

    

     When the film opens we learn that Geoffrey Radcliffe, played by Vincent Price, is already in prison awaiting his execution for the murder of his brother.  A murder that his fiance nor his friend believe him to be guilty of.  Well, it just so happens that this friend of his is Dr. Frank Griffin, brother of Dr. Jack/John Griffin, otherwise known to the viewer as the original Invisible Man from the first film.  Frank has his brother's old invisibility formula, and though he hasn't yet found a cure these past nine years, time is running out for Radcliffe, so the decision is made to put the invisibility formula to use in order to help his friend escape.  Of course the police connect the dots fairly quickly here.  Inmate vanished into thin air after getting a visit from a scientist related to a guy that made himself invisible you say?   Of course we still have to prove this theory and a little bit of convincing, but eventually the manhunt for the second invisible man is on.  From there, the police chase after Vincent Price, Mr. Price chases after the real bad guys that framed him, hopefully proving his innocence before he goes power mad crazy.

    

     I like that we are treated to a performance by Alan Napier in this movie.  For those that don't remember, Alan Napier played Alfred, the butler in the 1960's Batman TV series.  I had no idea he was in this until I saw the opening credits.  Seems every so often we are treated with an actor at a time we aren't suspecting him.  It made me think of the Dwight Frye cameo in the first Invisible Man, though Napier has a bigger role in this movie.

    

     And as Alan Napier caused me to recall Dwight Frye, so too did the annoying dog that wouldn't quit barking cause me to remember how annoying I found Gloria Stuart and/or Una O'Connor to be in the first film.  Don't get me wrong though,  I'd much rather listen to Una O'Connor's over the top screams than the whiney howls of this dog.

    

     The special effects weren't as impressive this time around but they do work for the most part.  Overall, I enjoyed this movie.  How does one not enjoy any sort of Vincent Price performance?  Even if Mr. Price only really shows himself at the end of the movie.

                                                                  GRADE: B-

The Invisible Man (1933)

     Before Heath Ledger's Joker, there was Claude Rains' Invisible Man.  That is the thought that runs through my mind every time the subject of this movie comes up.  Rains is about as maniacal and off the rails as one is going to find back in 1933, and he is perfect at it.  And to think that we almost got Karloff or Clive in this role.  I find the prospect of Colin Clive as The Invisible Man particularly interesting, but it was not to be.  The role went to Claude Rains and he ran with it.  Director James Whale took quite a chance hiring the unknown Rains, but it paid off in a big way.

 

     Now, I do also find this movie to have a bit of silliness to it but I believe those moments to be largely on purpose.  When the policeman and his two buddies chase the shirt around the chair, was it really necessary?  Una O'Connor's over exaggerated screams?   I suppose some people find those moments to simply add to the finished film but I found them to be a bit too Mel Brooks in a pre-Mel Brooks world.  I'm sure that in this movie, it was easy to take things over the top.  The scene where Rains skips down the road, singing in nothing but a pair of pants could have easily pushed itself too far as well, but it didn't.  I think it was very important for Whale to find the correct balance for this movie, and for the most part he did.

     The special effects of The Invisible Man hold up really well.  Especially if you are fortunate enough to view the Blu-Ray version of it.  When I first saw this movie, I expected a lot more visible wire work and cheap parlor tricks.  Boy was I wrong.  The effects are outstanding and not nearly as dated as one might think.

     Still, the real attraction of this movie is in Claude Rains' performance as Dr. Griffin, a scientist that has managed to turn himself invisible but can't seem to find the privacy or time he requires to turn himself back.   And this invisibility comes with a price.  His mind.  The longer Dr. Griffin remains in this invisible state, the more egocentric and power mad he becomes.   Before too long, Dr. Griffin's motives become less about curing himself and more about causing chaos.  De-rail a train?  Sure.  Kill a policeman by bashing him in the head to prove you exist?  Why not?  And that's just what Dr. Griffin does to people that he doesn't hold a grudge against.  Just ask his lab partner Dr. Kemp.  Oh wait, we can't.  Poor Kemp.  Then again, he was a filthy sneaky rat coward wasn't he?

     Part of me wishes that Gloria Stuart's character of Flora was in that car that went over the cliff.  I just found her to be a bit whiney and over dramatic, even for a 1933 film.  Still, there was way more to love about this movie than to nitpick about, and it's become one of my favorite Universal Monster films.

                                                              GRADE: A-